"Kneel, sit ot stand?" A parishioner seeing different practices, asks a priest which should be done

[mdgspencer]

see Echoes. Kneel, sit or stand?. Published 12/9/2020

“Q. After a series of work-related moves, I find myself on my fourth Catholic parish in the last 10 years.” Then, he went to say, people were told completely different things to do in different parishes after communion when they returned to their pews. “Could you comment?”

 

[InThePew]

Normally, the norms in the General Instruction on the Roman Missal for the particular country or region apply. If nothing else though, uniformity of posture is what matters so local custom prevails - just do what everyone else does. If there’s no method to their madness, then just do what works for you,

 

[Don_Ruggero]

In all the time I spent on these fora in years past, as a European I could never understand the fixation of certain people on rubrics – or the passion they could generate about them. It was enigmatic to me. And I taught Liturgy and Sacraments across my years as a professor. Not all rubrics are “created equal”.

I remember, some twenty years ago, my friend Cardinal Arinze was then prefect of the CDWDS and he had to address a tempest in a teapot that had arisen in the United States. The cardinal is from Nigeria but he handled the matter with typical Roman aplomb. I shall post the story momentarily.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Cardinal Francis George , of Chicago, chairman of the Bishops’ Committee of the Liturgy , submitted a dubium (question) to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments on May 26, 2003, concerning the long-standing practices of individuals kneeling upon returning to their places after having received Holy Communion. Cardinal Francis Arinze, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments responded on June 5, 2003, (Prot.n. 855/03/L).

The July 2003 Newsletter of the Bishops Committee on the Liturgy (BCL) noted the “controversy … over the proper posture of the faithful at Mass after receiving Holy Communion.

“In several dioceses people have been instructed that they must stand until the last person has received Communion, despite the long-standing custom that people knelt during the distribution of Communion”.

“Numerous inquiries” received by the BCL led Cardinal Francis George , chairman of the BCL, to submit a dubium (doubt, question) to the Holy See’s Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (CDW) on May 26, 2003:

Dubium : In many places, the faithful are accustomed to kneeling or sitting in personal prayer upon returning to their places after having individually received Holy Communion during Mass. Is it the intention of the Missale Romanum, editio typica tertia , to forbid this practice?

Cardinal Francis Arinze , Prefect of the CDW, responded to the question on June 5, 2003 (Prot. N. 855/03/L):

Responsum : Negative, et ad mensum [No, for this reason]. The mens [reasoning] is that the prescription of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani , no. 43, is intended, on the one hand, to ensure within broad limits a certain uniformity of posture within the congregation for the various parts of the celebration of Holy Mass, and on the other, to not regulate posture rigidly in such a way that those who wish to kneel or sit would no longer be free.

The BCL Newsletter continues: “In the implementation of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal , therefore, posture should not be regulated so rigidly as to forbid individual communicants from kneeling or sitting when returning from having received Holy Communion ” (p. 26. Emphasis added .)

Earlier, the CDW had reaffirmed kneeling after the Ecce Agnus Dei [Behold, the Lamb of God] when it amended the relevant paragraph (no. 43) of the GIRM for the universal Church by adding the following clarifying sentence:

Where it is the custom that the people remain kneeling from the end of the Sanctus until the end of the Eucharistic Prayer, and before Communion when the priest says Ecce Agnus Dei , this is laudably retained. [See AB March 2003, p. 4 sidebar.]

This sentence does not appear in the GIRM as adapted for the United States, however, since this period of kneeling is explicitly affirmed in the US version of no. 43, that is, “unless the Diocesan Bishop determines otherwise”.

After Receiving Communion One May Kneel

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I am originally from one of those dioceses where Mass attendees were told to stand at Communion time and remain standing until after the last person had received, then all sit down together. I was not a fan of that because I was used to kneeling for post-Communion prayers as I was taught as a child, and also because many of the churches where I come from are large and draw a pretty big Sunday Mass crowd, so the elderly and the non-physically fit would be forced to stand for a long time.

So, me being me, when the former bishop (2 bishops ago now) made this announcement that we all had to stand for Communion, I always just ignored the “you must stand” thing and knelt anyway. It’s not like the usher was going to run up and lecture me and throw me out of the church. Indeed, no one cares and I’m also not the only one who kneels.

What’s really interesting is when you see a bishop like Archbishop Perez. When he was bishop of Cleveland, he would make big announcements about how everyone should stand at Communion because the previous bishop had made a big deal out of it there, even though a sizable percentage of people i(ncluding me when I’m there) ignore it and kneel. Then Perez moved to Philadelphia where there is no standing after Communion, one kneels after Communion and I’m sure former Archbishop Chaput wouldn’t have had it any other way., and Perez knew that because he was from there and had been a priest and pastor there only a few short years ago. Perez of course doesn’t say boo about standing now he’s back in Philly. It really seems like these rubrics take on some diocesan life of their own.

I am sure that post-pandemic the churches will be too concerned with just getting people back to Mass than whether they are standing or kneeling to pray when they get there.

 

[BigBoom]

In all the time I spent on these fora in years past, as a European I could never understand the fixation of certain people on rubrics – or the passion they could generate about them. It was enigmatic to me. And I taught Liturgy and Sacraments across my years as a professor. Not all rubrics are “created equal”.

I remember, some twenty years ago, my friend Cardinal Arinze was then prefect of the CDWDS and he had to address a tempest in a teapot that had arisen in the United States. The cardinal is from Nigeria but he handled the matter with typical Roman aplomb. I shall post the story momentarily.

It’s about obedience. People are supposed to be obedient to the church, as are the priests and bishops. If the priest isn’t obedient, why should he expect his parishioners to be? It also could be a sign of the sin of pride. The priest thinking his way of doing things is better than the way instructed by his superiors.

 

[stpurl]

I think we all appreciate your contribution, Father, because as Americans we tend to look on things differently, and it does help hearing another point of view, even if it differs from our own.

Of course as a lay woman I cannot possibly fully understand how it must be for a priest. I do understand, being in my mid 60s and having a mother living at age 91, as well as older siblings and family, what it was like living in the 1950s and 1960s when, especially in the US, there was such a societal upheaval that affected everything. . . Not just the rubrics of the Mass (I know there were changes in the older rite through the 20th century including before Vatican II), but so many other things that were ‘then’ and continue today.

Everything, even the way in which people of all walks of life, had held as true and fine, how we dressed, how we spoke to others, how we ran our homes, our businesses, our schools. . .everything changed.

Obviously change is always happening, but these were not simple changes that just came as a natural order of development. The vast majority of changes came from a deep desire to completely upend the ‘Establishment’ in every possible way. It was anarchy cloaked in a “Summer of Love’ in which we saw unprecedented violence especially among people of color, and aggression toward women.

So it is understandable that, while not wanting to ‘go back’ (one can only go forward after all) to some supposedly perfect time (no time is ever perfect), people when looking back at ‘change for change’s sake’ over several decades do see something of truth and beauty that was rejected only for change, that they wish in turn to bring those things ‘back’ so that those things can be a part of ‘today’ and a part of ‘going forward’.

It is also not strange that in a tumultuous atmosphere that an attitude of wishing to ‘say the black and do the red’ has an appeal. There are a sizeable number of people —I presume you are familiar with the Meyer-Briggs index—who thrive on ‘order’ and are deeply uncomfortable with a constant flux. Just because our current society values right now individuals who are more ‘fluid’ and adaptable does not mean that fluid and adaptable are the only things, or even the best things, at all times. I can only imagine, for example, that if an attitude of ‘let’s not bother with rules’ were the case in a battleground that the result would be horrific. Sometimes rules are extremely important. Sometimes, of course, we can focus too much on something not as important. I think that may have been the case (or said to be the case) in the early 20th century so perhaps a pendulum swing to a freer and most ‘pastoral’ attitude where rules were somewhat ‘suspect’ of being a dreaded step back to the terrible time still lingers. However, now we are having another pendulum shift where people are seeing, in some places, a lack of rules that is tending to disobedience and anarchy and who wish for more attention paid in order to keep people from the danger of thinking that there is no need for rules at all.

 

[Jen7]

Beautifully said.

 

[babochka]

It also could be a sign of the sin of pride. The priest thinking his way of doing things is better than the way instructed by his superiors.

Wouldn’t that also be true of parishioners who decide to disobey the pastor? I know that we can all read the rubrics, but we often aren’t privy to communication between the Holy See and the Bishops oh, and the Bishops and the pastors. Not to say that pastors don’t sometimes overstep their authority on these matters, but pride is certainly not limited to the priests.

 

[felsguy]

I always remember the time while on vacation my late wife and I and another couple attended Mass in a small church in a diocese that I found out later was just going through the throes of the stand/sit after Communion turmoil. Because she was using a walker we were invited to sit in the designated handicapped pew dead center in the very front and informed that the priest would distribute Communion to all four of us right in the pew. I can’t remember whether we received standing or kneeling but we remained kneeling while everyone else came forward to receive as was the custom in our parish back home. As we stood to sit when the tabernacle was closed I happened to glance over my shoulder only to discover to my chagrin that everyone else had remained standing after receiving. No one said anything to us but we did get some stern looks. Apparently there were folks going around to different parishes making a display of kneeling in protest and there we were as big as you please, four strangers kneeling front and center. From then on we always made sure we were “doing what the Romans do” whenever we traveled.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

It’s about obedience. People are supposed to be obedient to the church, as are the priests and bishops. If the priest isn’t obedient, why should he expect his parishioners to be? It also could be a sign of the sin of pride. The priest thinking his way of doing things is better than the way instructed by his superiors.

Rubrics are not an end in themselves. They are there for a purpose.

A priest who is well formed knows how to understand a given rubric according to how it is to be interpreted and the weight the rubric needs to be given.

Cardinal Arinze explains, quite effectively, how this particular rubric I published above is to be understood and interpreted. It carries very little weight at all, actually. As I recall, I made an announcements at the time the revision went into effect – and that is all I did. I did not in any way take any sort of enforcement action nor would I. Nor would I allow others to. It’s not that important.

After, as before, was pretty much the same in that most people adopted the prescribed posture. Some number did one of the other two possibilities and some number did the other possibility.

Sadly, from my perspective, for some Americans, the matter became such an issue and confrontation that the President of the United States Conference of Bishops had to ask for clarification from the Holy See’s Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.

The Cardinal prefect stated that the people in question were being overzealous and rigid in what was never intended to be so brutally enforced.

The liturgy is not meant to unfold with a military precision in terms of movements and gestures and with such a uniformity and crispness of posture.

 

[Jen7]

The Cardinal prefect stated that the people in question were being overzealous and rigid in what was never intended to be so brutally enforced.

That may be but it’s sad when it IS somewhat brutally enforced.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I do understand, being in my mid 60s and having a mother living at age 91, as well as older siblings and family, what it was like living in the 1950s and 1960s when, especially in the US, there was such a societal upheaval that affected everything. . . Not just the rubrics of the Mass

You are blessed to still have your mother. My mother died more than 30 years ago. I have, however, the expectation of a reunion with her that is not afar off. My father would be well over a hundred but, of course, he has been in eternity also for many years.

while not wanting to ‘go back’ (one can only go forward after all) to some supposedly perfect time (no time is ever perfect), people when looking back at ‘change for change’s sake’ over several decades do see something of truth and beauty that was rejected

Well…I do not have a sense of nostalgia as I look back to the past. The years after the war certainly do not evoke nostalgia. It was not a pleasant time at all. It was a time of tremendous hardship.

It was also a time in which women did not have the place they should have had, in an egalitarian society. I have very stark memories of the consequences of that. Similarly, those who were of other origin were treated badly and with prejudice. That, too, was a hallmark of that period of time. I don’t find those people, who were alive at that time, now look back on that era with a any real sense of nostalgia either. It was an oppressive time.

Moreover, I look back to a generation, some 15 years after the war that were so pleased that, to use the words of the Saint of God, Pope John XXIII, the windows were thrown open and fresh air was allowed in.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

continued
I have very fond memories of my mother (and of her mother as well). My mother was a very lovely lady…graceful and gracious…well-mannered and well cultured. But she was also on the cutting edge of advances for women of her era, carving out for herself an education and, at a time when it was rare, her profession. She was an independent and determined woman, not shy about being non-conforming in the face of a society that was over-oppressive.

In that era, women had dressing conventions that society regulated severely. My mother adapted to them in so far as she had no choice. I have photos of her in her dresses with her hats and her gloves and her handbags before she completely updated her wardrobe. She was in those photos in a style not unlike the Queen still today, actually.

She had to dress that way because to have dressed otherwise would have had very severe consequences, not only on her but also for my father because of the dutiful role “good” wives were expected to play. Fortunately, times were changing and my mother was in the front line of that innovation and change.

The last place my mother ever wore a dress or covered her head was the Church…because the Church was, sadly, the last place to accept change. She kept one dress and one hat that was her “Church outfit” – knowing that the change would come inevitably and shortly. And it did. And that was it, when it did.

My mother was a woman who knew fashion. She believed – and I would concur – that she looked much better in pantsuits, that she designed for herself, rather than she did in dresses. Simply said, they suited her much better. And she greatly preferred being in pants. I also have photos of her going back to the war in either pants or culottes…for such occasions as she could get away with wearing them.

I remember, years later, when we were going through some photos asking if she had any sense of missing that style of dressing. She said “absolutely none.” The photos evoked sentiments that were not nostalgia but deep gratitude that things had changed. They had changed for the better, in many ways. Actually, I was always convinced she burned that last dress and hat.

Sometimes rules are extremely important.

Indeed. Sometimes rules are extremely important. Sometimes rules are of very little value. Sometimes rules need to be changed and things are better for their being changed.

It is also not strange that in a tumultuous atmosphere that an attitude of wishing to ‘say the black and do the red’ has an appeal.

That expression strikes no positive chord in me…at all. It is a trite phrase that evokes rigidity. And, moreover celebrates a type of slavish attitude. It is an attitude that would be unworthy, above all, in a priest whose liturgical formation should be so much richer than that.

 

[Dovekin]

The Reception of Holy Communion at Mass is a handout from the USCCB that explains the Communion Procession, including posture.

The fact that the Communion Procession is a profoundly religious action tells us something about the way in which we should participate in this procession. We are the Body of Christ, moving forward to receive the Christ who makes us one with himself and with one another. Our procession should move with dignity; our bearing should be that of those who know they have been redeemed by Christ and are coming to receive their God!

This is the reason for continuing to stand until the Procession is over (until all have received). Singing is also an important part of this.

This is not a perfect explanation, because some interpret “after Communion” as “after I have received Communion” while the intent was to mean “after all have received Communion.” This is not an arbitrary choice among sit, stand, or kneel, but a principled choice of what fosters Communion with Christ and with one another.

And of course it should not be enforced “brutally.” It is the norm to stand in the USA, but it is more important to be united with those around you. It is good to know standing is the norm, and why, no matter what posture each chooses.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I can understand your view that a priest’s formation should be deeper and richer than “say the black and do the red”.

But we have recently had some very bad problems in US with clergy (often deacons and not priests) who decided to make some freeform changes on their own to the words of Baptism when they were baptizing babies many years ago. And in view of the Vatican’s recent pronouncement about the wording used for baptisms, this has not only caused a lot of ordinary Catholics to have to be re-baptized, but also even caused some young priests whose baptisms weren’t valid to have to receive all the sacraments up to and including Holy Orders again, and caused a “ripple effect” to those parishioners who received certain sacraments from that particular priest before he was properly ordained.

We also have a thread somewhere else on the forum regarding some priest who is insisting on naming Servants of God inappropriately in the Eucharistic Prayers and refusing to stop even when multiple parishioners express concerns and some of them even left to attend another parish.

Stuff like this scares and upsets people. I grew up during the 1970s in USA and I honestly never knew what the 1970s era priests and deacons and religious were going to come up with next. It was a strange time.

 

[MikeInVA]

I could never understand the fixation of certain people on rubrics – or the passion they could generate about them.

As someone who wore a uniform to work for many years, I found it liberating to not have to worry about what I had to wear. It allowed me to focus on more important things. Similarly, the rubrics provide structure that allows participants to not have to worry about what to do and it allows them to focus on prayer.

What I cannot understand is why so many priests feel the need to disregard what’s in the rubrics. One priest who recently retired from our parish always said, “sisters and brothers” instead of “brethren” or “brothers and sisters.” It didn’t change the validity of the Mass or contradict the teachings of the Church, but it was like a musician who always (deliberately) played the wrong note in a song. It was enough to distract my prayers for a few seconds to wonder why he made the change.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

I grew up during the 1970s in USA and I honestly never knew what the 1970s era priests and deacons and religious were going to come up with next.

Where did that concern come from?

It was enough to distract my prayers for a few seconds to wonder why he made the change.

I suppose you are describing a distraction rather than a concern. But still, how is it that you even notice? Most of the prayers of the Mass change with nearly every Mass.

My point in bringing this up is that I myself have never had one bit of thought spent about what is said by the priest, and whether it is correct or not. I almost cannot even fathom why any lay person in the pew would even have those things cross their mind.

When I joined this sight a few years ago I was surprised by the level of concern that people seemed to be showing for every little detail of minutiae concerning the Mass. I thought that it must be a hobby, for lack of a better term, for some people, and I didn’t think about it anymore.

As the years went by, I noticed a group of posters that could be known as the liturgy police. This is entirely different from a hobby, and I thought these people were probably unbalanced.

Either hobby, unbalanced people, or concerned people, I still don’t understand the concern for something that is so far beyond what I would think is the average lay person’s competence. It’s one of the things that I have picked from this forum which I wish I could forget entirely.

That being said, I may as well give my own opinion about rubrics and the GIRM. Even though it’s something I wish I knew absolutely nothing about, I have nevertheless formed an opinion. I don’t know what the relationship is between GIRM and the Holy Spirit, if there is one at all. I only know that there is a relationship between the priest and the Holy Spirit. It is certainly not up to me to question that relationship, much less the priest’s use of the GIRM.

The descriptions of the Holy Spirit that I have known are that of a creator of sorts. Creating one thing out of another. A changer, a guider, an artist. That strikes me as being somewhat remote from “do the red say the black”. Although there must be a connection between ritual and the Holy Spirit, such as intent.

At the risk of being a TLDR post, I’ll bring up the relationship between the Holy Spirit and the individual in the pew. Is the Holy Spirit calling people to question a priest’s actions at the Mass? To me, that doesn’t make sense in any practical way, or a mystical way either.

 

[MikeInVA]

As the years went by, I noticed a group of posters that could be known as the liturgy police. This is entirely different from a hobby, and I thought these people were probably unbalanced.

How do you describe priests who deliberately (I have no issue with mistakes) change the words? If it is so inconsequential, why do they do it? I would imagine it takes more energy to deliberately change the wording than to just read the words out of the missal.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Where did that concern come from?

It’s pretty clear in the context of the overall discussion on the thread.